https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm

"The Hebrew word translated in the Latin Vulgate as firmamentum is raqia' whose verb form means "to spread, stamp or beat out." The material beaten out is not directly specified, but both biblical and extrabiblical evidence suggests that it is metal. A verb form of raqia' is used in both of these passages: "And gold leaf was hammered out..." (Ex. 39:3); and "beaten silver is brought from Tarshish" (Jer. l0:9). There are indeed figurative uses of this term."

What the authors of Genesis meant by Yom is clearly specified in Genesis 1:4-5:

"And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day"

This begins the first creation week narrative, by defining what a day and night are. This makes it abundantly clear that it was tied to sunrise and sunset, i.e. literal days, with evenings and mornings as described.

You have seized only upon the two verses you feel you can dispute, as if should you make the case that these two verses might mean something else, all the other verses describing Enochian cosmology as scholars of history and religion understand it suddenly disappear. They do not. The Bible refers to the same common comsology of the ancient world also found in Egyptian and Babylonian religions. The Norse also had a flat Earth cosmology albeit a little more elaborate.

You make the same enormous interpretive stretches Muslims do in their oft repeated claim that the Qur'an contains truths which science has only recently caught up with. You ought to recognize what sort of game they're playing, as you're playing it too.

I do not believe Sagan said what you claim. I googled "Carl Sagan universe surrounded by water" and got zero relevant hits. I suspect strongly you're paraphrasing in such a way as to suit your agenda. Either way, if there's no evidence for it, why would you seize upon it as you have except that it aligns with your religious beliefs?

As for your bullet points concerning abiogenesis and prebiotic evolution, you're in luck, I've written an article on that very topic: https://medium.com/atheism101/what-the-heck-are-abiogenesis-and-prebiotic-evolution-fab699925c11

But the deeper meaning of that section of your post is "if science does not have the answer to a question, then whatever answer the Bible gives is automatically true without needing to be proven with evidence".

That does not logically follow. You are just eager to conclude in favor of what you already wish to be true, and don't need much of an excuse to leap to that conclusion.

The Bible did not say stars would "appear" to fall to the Earth. It says they literally will, and describes devastation which results from this event.

I seem to have a strange impression of Jesus to you because cults appear very differently from the inside than they do from the outside, by design. Successful cults are designed in such a way as to place themselves as far as possible beyond suspicion, appearing as convincing, sober reality to believers.

For example, you can see Scientology is a cult because you view it from the outside. Scientologists don't see what you see. From their perspective you have a very warped idea of who L. Ron Hubbard was.

Likewise you can probably see this is how Islam, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses started out, because you have the benefit of an external perspective.

Are you absolutely certain it's impossible that you're deceived by the same method, in the same boat they are, not realizing it for the same reason they don't? Or are you just smarter than all of them?

Finally, no, "more and more scientists, including atheistic ones, are rejecting Darwinism" is not true. You may have heard this from creationist apologetics ministries, but it's not the case unless by "atheistic scientists" you mean Raelians.

When you say the math doesn't remotely add up, you're likely referring to Fred Hoyle's debunked calculation of the odds of all parts of a cell coming together at once of their own accord. But this is not how biologists say cells formed. Life did not have to begin with a fully formed modern animal or plant cell. As you rightly conclude, that would be impossible.

Cells are not irreducibly complex. The simplest form of life is just a self-copying chemical reaction. This doesn't require DNA or even RNA. Biologists have stripped both down to individual peptides, which were still able to self-copy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8700225/

You are apparently unaware of the existence of the entire field of prebiotic evolution. Which is to say the evolutionary steps between the simplest possible chemical replicator (which is in fact rudimentary enough to form spontaneously) and the modern plant/animal cell, in all its magnificent complexity. It's because you're lacking this information from your analysis that you have reached the wrong conclusion.

You know what math really doesn't work out? The odds that the order of depths we find fossil remains at in the geological strata would exactly corroborate the order in which species diverged from one another according to both taxonomy and genetic sequencing. For creationism to be true, those three maps of inter-relatedness perfectly agreeing with one another has got to simply be an incredible coincidence.

I post text here, often accompanied by images and sometimes video. People then clap or don't depending on whether they enjoy what I posted.